Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Borealis4x on June 01, 2020, 02:17:02 PM
-
Here is my first attempt at creating a carrier and its fighter contingency:
The Carrier
India class Carrier 45,000 tons 1,030 Crew 16,758.9 BP TCS 900 TH 1,080 EM 0
7500 km/s Armour 6-112 Shields 0-0 HTK 255 Sensors 24/24/0/0 DCR 62 PPV 114.48
Maint Life 1.08 Years MSP 10,428 AFR 506% IFR 7.0% 1YR 9,028 5YR 135,423 Max Repair 7593.75 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 10,000 tons Troop Capacity 100 tons Drop Capable Magazine 2,280
Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 200 Morale Check Required
Aerospatial SA Cruiser Magnetic Fusion Drive M.HS180 EP6750.00 (1) Power 6750 Fuel Use 19.49% Signature 1080.00 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 4,000,000 Litres Range 82.1 billion km (126 days at full power)
Quad Rheinmetall AG Gauss Cannon Mk.1 (12x20) Range 50,000km TS: 32000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 50,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R60-TS32000 (4) Max Range: 60,000 km TS: 32,000 km/s 83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Size 1 Missile Pod (24) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 5
Cyberdyne Systems Corporation AMM Missile Fire Control FC12-R1 (10%) (4) Range 12.1m km Resolution 1
EADS Bodkin Fighter Anti-Ship Missile (480) Speed: 82,933 km/s End: 0.2m Range: 1m km WH: 10 Size: 3.00 TH: 276/165/82
Raytheon Rapier AMM (456) Speed: 87,600 km/s End: 0.5m Range: 2.5m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 671/402/201
Raytheon Point DRADIS AS19-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 48 Range 19.1m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1
Raytheon Command DRADIS AS562-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 192000 Range 562.1m km Resolution 100
Raytheon Standard DRADIS AS51-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 960 Range 52m km Resolution 20
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
ECM 50
Strike Group
48x B2 Lancer Bomber Speed: 25152 km/s Size: 2.48
6x D4 Raven Dropship Speed: 12515 km/s Size: 9.99
2x SC1 Bugeye Scout Speed: 12515 km/s Size: 9.99
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Primary Strike Craft
B2 Lancer class Bomber 200 tons 4 Crew 168.8 BP TCS 4 TH 20 EM 0
31300 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 2 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 39% IFR 0.6% 1YR 7 5YR 108 Max Repair 70.3125 MSP
Magazine 6
Sub-Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Union Aerospace Corporation Fighter Magnetic Fusion Drive M.HS1 EP62.50 (2) Power 125.0 Fuel Use 937.50% Signature 10.000 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 27,000 Litres Range 2.6 billion km (23 hours at full power)
Size 3 Missile Mount (2) Missile Size: 3 Hangar Reload 86 minutes MF Reload 14 hours
Renraku Computer Systems Fighter Missile Fire Control FC32-R20 (5%) (1) Range 32.9m km Resolution 20
Raytheon Micro Point DRADIS AS6-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 5 Range 6.1m km MCR 545k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Scout Fighter
SC1 Bugeye class Scout 500 tons 16 Crew 603.4 BP TCS 10 TH 20 EM 0
12515 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 6 Sensors 24/24/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 99% IFR 1.4% 1YR 145 5YR 2,182 Max Repair 384 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Union Aerospace Corporation Fighter Magnetic Fusion Drive M.HS1 EP62.50 (2) Power 125.0 Fuel Use 937.50% Signature 10.000 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 51,000 Litres Range 2 billion km (43 hours at full power)
Yang Su Enterprises Scout DRADIS (1) GPS 3840 Range 104m km Resolution 20
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Boarding Dropship
D4 Raven class Dropship 500 tons 13 Crew 181.8 BP TCS 10 TH 20 EM 0
12515 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 99% IFR 1.4% 1YR 17 5YR 252 Max Repair 70.3125 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons Boarding Capable
Sub-Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Union Aerospace Corporation Fighter Magnetic Fusion Drive M.HS1 EP62.50 (2) Power 125.0 Fuel Use 937.50% Signature 10.000 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 31,000 Litres Range 1.2 billion km (26 hours at full power)
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Questions
- I added a very small drop transport bay to the carrier to house the company HQ for all the Marine boarding squads. I understand you can still connect them in a hierarchy even if they aren't on the same ship.
- Can you quickly deploy all ground units from the carrier with a single click as long as all the dropships containing the Marines are in the carrier?
- Is having passive sensors on a scout a good idea? I want it to have the option to be stealthy
- At what range should I have the bombers fire? I assume you want fighter missiles to hit within 5 seconds before enemy PD has a chance to react. I didn't make a very good missile in that case...
- What kind of weapons do you put on fighters? I used a single 25% accuracy GG and it was still too big for my tastes. I'm trying to get them at 125 tons.
EDIT:
I've created a new missile to be used on the strike bombers, meant to be launched at 400,000 km.
Missile Size: 3.00 MSP (7.500 Tons) Warhead: 10 Radiation Damage: 10 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 82,933 km/s Fuel: 25 Flight Time: 11.7 seconds Range: 970,320 km
Cost Per Missile: 8.72 Development Cost: 872
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 829.3% 3k km/s 276.4% 5k km/s 165.9% 10k km/s 82.9%
-
Your missiles have actual range more than double their intended range, and the bombers have fire control range more than 32 times the actual range of the missiles?
(Also warhead 10 is almost physically painful, but sure.)
I like scouts with passive sensors, though there's an argument for splitting the sneaky passive scout and the obviously-not-sneaky active spotter. I currently do both in the same hull, but I currently have no enemies and the scout craft exists purely to poke suspiciously attractive planets with an expendable, alert stick so that my survey boats don't walk into something nasty.
-
- Is having passive sensors on a scout a good idea? I want it to have the option to be stealthy
It is possible. Although I would separate active sensor scouts from passive sensor scouts, so making each smaller, and the passive one can stay stealthy.
- At what range should I have the bombers fire? I assume you want fighter missiles to hit within 5 seconds before enemy PD has a chance to react. I didn't make a very good missile in that case...
In C# missile hits within 5 seconds will still be engaged by PD. So not necessary anymore.
- What kind of weapons do you put on fighters? I used a single 25% accuracy GG and it was still too big for my tastes. I'm trying to get them at 125 tons.
Probably only 0.6/0.75 HS gauss is feasible for 125-ton capacity beam weapon wise.
For missiles, 2x S3 box launchers can be fit into a 125-ton hull I think. Below is my anti-fighter interceptor at one tech higher than yours. I believe shaving down some speed and range it can fit nicely in your tech.
Needle class Interceptor 120 tons 3 Crew 61.2 BP TCS 2 TH 96 EM 0
40117 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 3.69 Years MSP 20 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 2 5YR 34 Max Repair 48 MSP
Magazine 6
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 30 days Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP96.00 (1) Power 96 Fuel Use 1232.38% Signature 96 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.2 billion km (8 hours at full power)
Size 3.0 Box Launcher (2) Missile Size: 3 Hangar Reload 86 minutes MF Reload 14 hours
Missile Fire Control FC26-R5 (1) Range 26.7m km Resolution 5
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (2) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
-
Your missiles have actual range more than double their intended range, and the bombers have fire control range more than 32 times the actual range of the missiles?
(Also warhead 10 is almost physically painful, but sure.)
I like scouts with passive sensors, though there's an argument for splitting the sneaky passive scout and the obviously-not-sneaky active spotter. I currently do both in the same hull, but I currently have no enemies and the scout craft exists purely to poke suspiciously attractive planets with an expendable, alert stick so that my survey boats don't walk into something nasty.
Its the smallest FC I can get with my tech level. Can't do much about that other than use less advanced Active Gran Sensors Strength tech, but why would I do that?
And whats so painful about the warhead? Too big? Too small?
-
Your missiles have actual range more than double their intended range, and the bombers have fire control range more than 32 times the actual range of the missiles?
(Also warhead 10 is almost physically painful, but sure.)
I like scouts with passive sensors, though there's an argument for splitting the sneaky passive scout and the obviously-not-sneaky active spotter. I currently do both in the same hull, but I currently have no enemies and the scout craft exists purely to poke suspiciously attractive planets with an expendable, alert stick so that my survey boats don't walk into something nasty.
Its the smallest FC I can get with my tech level. Can't do much about that other than use less advanced Active Gran Sensors Strength tech, but why would I do that?
And whats so painful about the warhead? Too big? Too small?
It is one point above a square number (9), so it is not the most efficient warhead choice in terms of penetration.
-
Your missiles have actual range more than double their intended range, and the bombers have fire control range more than 32 times the actual range of the missiles?
(Also warhead 10 is almost physically painful, but sure.)
I like scouts with passive sensors, though there's an argument for splitting the sneaky passive scout and the obviously-not-sneaky active spotter. I currently do both in the same hull, but I currently have no enemies and the scout craft exists purely to poke suspiciously attractive planets with an expendable, alert stick so that my survey boats don't walk into something nasty.
Its the smallest FC I can get with my tech level. Can't do much about that other than use less advanced Active Gran Sensors Strength tech, but why would I do that?
And whats so painful about the warhead? Too big? Too small?
It is one point above a square number (9), so it is not the most efficient warhead choice in terms of penetration.
I understand from others on the forum that that doesn't matter anymore.
-
Your missiles have actual range more than double their intended range, and the bombers have fire control range more than 32 times the actual range of the missiles?
(Also warhead 10 is almost physically painful, but sure.)
I like scouts with passive sensors, though there's an argument for splitting the sneaky passive scout and the obviously-not-sneaky active spotter. I currently do both in the same hull, but I currently have no enemies and the scout craft exists purely to poke suspiciously attractive planets with an expendable, alert stick so that my survey boats don't walk into something nasty.
Its the smallest FC I can get with my tech level. Can't do much about that other than use less advanced Active Gran Sensors Strength tech, but why would I do that?
And whats so painful about the warhead? Too big? Too small?
It is one point above a square number (9), so it is not the most efficient warhead choice in terms of penetration.
I understand from others on the forum that that doesn't matter anymore.
Not sure what do you mean by that doesn't matter, but the damage template for missiles is not changed in C#. 9 damage will leave a 3 depth crater on the armor, while 10 damage has 1 more damage on the topmost layer.
-
Its the smallest FC I can get with my tech level. Can't do much about that other than use less advanced Active Gran Sensors Strength tech, but why would I do that?
I think it would be cheaper if you used older tech. Or you could drop the resolution to let the same fire control support anti-fighter and anti-missile missiles more effectively.
Of course, it's a tiny component that you've probably already developed. And the gratuitous range does at least serve to counter some of the effects of ECM. So attempting to refine it might be a waste of time and effort.
-
- Is having passive sensors on a scout a good idea? I want it to have the option to be stealthy
It is possible. Although I would separate active sensor scouts from passive sensor scouts, so making each smaller, and the passive one can stay stealthy.
- At what range should I have the bombers fire? I assume you want fighter missiles to hit within 5 seconds before enemy PD has a chance to react. I didn't make a very good missile in that case...
In C# missile hits within 5 seconds will still be engaged by PD. So not necessary anymore.
- What kind of weapons do you put on fighters? I used a single 25% accuracy GG and it was still too big for my tastes. I'm trying to get them at 125 tons.
Probably only 0.6/0.75 HS gauss is feasible for 125-ton capacity beam weapon wise.
For missiles, 2x S3 box launchers can be fit into a 125-ton hull I think. Below is my anti-fighter interceptor at one tech higher than yours. I believe shaving down some speed and range it can fit nicely in your tech.
Needle class Interceptor 120 tons 3 Crew 61.2 BP TCS 2 TH 96 EM 0
40117 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 3.69 Years MSP 20 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 2 5YR 34 Max Repair 48 MSP
Magazine 6
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 30 days Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP96.00 (1) Power 96 Fuel Use 1232.38% Signature 96 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.2 billion km (8 hours at full power)
Size 3.0 Box Launcher (2) Missile Size: 3 Hangar Reload 86 minutes MF Reload 14 hours
Missile Fire Control FC26-R5 (1) Range 26.7m km Resolution 5
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (2) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
What would you say about stripping out the Active Sensors on the bombers and then putting them on a dedicated 'spotter' fighter that flies with the squadron to spot targets?
Its an interesting idea, but I fear it makes the bombers too delicate. If the spotter gets taken out, the whole squadron is out of action.
-
The Carrier
India class Carrier 45,001 tons 1,052 Crew 16,869.7 BP TCS 900 TH 1,080 EM 0
7499 km/s Armour 6-112 Shields 0-0 HTK 262 Sensors 24/24/0/0 DCR 66 PPV 136.64
Maint Life 1.04 Years MSP 8,634 AFR 450% IFR 6.3% 1YR 8,024 5YR 120,361 Max Repair 7593.75 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 10,000 tons Troop Capacity 100 tons Drop Capable Magazine 1,896
Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 200 Morale Check Required
Aerospatial SA Cruiser Magnetic Fusion Drive M.HS180 EP6750.00 (1) Power 6750 Fuel Use 19.49% Signature 1080.00 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 4,000,000 Litres Range 82.1 billion km (126 days at full power)
Quad Rheinmetall AG Gauss Cannon Mk.1 (16x20) Range 50,000km TS: 32000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 50,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R60-TS32000 (4) Max Range: 60,000 km TS: 32,000 km/s 83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Size 1 Missile Pod (16) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 5
Cyberdyne Systems Corporation AMM Missile Fire Control FC12-R1 (10%) (4) Range 12.1m km Resolution 1
Misriah Armory Stilletto Light Anti-Ship Missile (300) Speed: 62,533 km/s End: 3.3m Range: 12.4m km WH: 10 Size: 3 TH: 479/287/143
Raytheon Rapier AMM (996) Speed: 87,600 km/s End: 0.5m Range: 2.5m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 671/402/201
Raytheon Point DRADIS AS19-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 48 Range 19.1m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1
Raytheon Command DRADIS AS562-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 192000 Range 562.1m km Resolution 100
Raytheon Standard DRADIS AS51-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 960 Range 52m km Resolution 20
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
ECM 50
Strike Group
30x B2 Lancer Bomber Speed: 31300 km/s Size: 3.99
6x D4 Raven Dropship Speed: 12515 km/s Size: 9.99
2x SC1 Bugeye Scout Speed: 12515 km/s Size: 9.99
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
While I'm uncertain of your military doctrine, I would strongly recommend raising both the maintenance life and the deployment time on the carrier - what you have is far, far too short for any kind of extended conflict. I would suggest at least 12 months of deployment time, with 2+ years of maintenance supplies. You also appear to have only one engine, which is a extremely inadvisable on such a large, decidedly non-expendable vessel. Fuel efficiency is not as important as ensuring you don't lose all motive power from an unlucky hit, especially considering the carrier doesn't have the MSP to repair a damaged engine.
-
- Is having passive sensors on a scout a good idea? I want it to have the option to be stealthy
It is possible. Although I would separate active sensor scouts from passive sensor scouts, so making each smaller, and the passive one can stay stealthy.
- At what range should I have the bombers fire? I assume you want fighter missiles to hit within 5 seconds before enemy PD has a chance to react. I didn't make a very good missile in that case...
In C# missile hits within 5 seconds will still be engaged by PD. So not necessary anymore.
- What kind of weapons do you put on fighters? I used a single 25% accuracy GG and it was still too big for my tastes. I'm trying to get them at 125 tons.
Probably only 0.6/0.75 HS gauss is feasible for 125-ton capacity beam weapon wise.
For missiles, 2x S3 box launchers can be fit into a 125-ton hull I think. Below is my anti-fighter interceptor at one tech higher than yours. I believe shaving down some speed and range it can fit nicely in your tech.
Needle class Interceptor 120 tons 3 Crew 61.2 BP TCS 2 TH 96 EM 0
40117 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 3.69 Years MSP 20 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 2 5YR 34 Max Repair 48 MSP
Magazine 6
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 30 days Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP96.00 (1) Power 96 Fuel Use 1232.38% Signature 96 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.2 billion km (8 hours at full power)
Size 3.0 Box Launcher (2) Missile Size: 3 Hangar Reload 86 minutes MF Reload 14 hours
Missile Fire Control FC26-R5 (1) Range 26.7m km Resolution 5
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (2) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
What would you say about stripping out the Active Sensors on the bombers and then putting them on a dedicated 'spotter' fighter that flies with the squadron to spot targets?
Its an interesting idea, but I fear it makes the bombers too delicate. If the spotter gets taken out, the whole squadron is out of action.
For anti-ship actives, they can be small enough (0.1HS) to be squeezed in as long as the missile range is not too long. That's only 2000L of fuel anyway. For smaller resolution sensors, it is harder, that's why I didn't include it in my design.
I have multiple sensor fighters within my interceptor wings, and they are not supposed to approach enemy main fleet, so it is less likely that the sensor fighters will be targeted.
-
The Carrier
India class Carrier 45,001 tons 1,052 Crew 16,869.7 BP TCS 900 TH 1,080 EM 0
7499 km/s Armour 6-112 Shields 0-0 HTK 262 Sensors 24/24/0/0 DCR 66 PPV 136.64
Maint Life 1.04 Years MSP 8,634 AFR 450% IFR 6.3% 1YR 8,024 5YR 120,361 Max Repair 7593.75 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 10,000 tons Troop Capacity 100 tons Drop Capable Magazine 1,896
Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 200 Morale Check Required
Aerospatial SA Cruiser Magnetic Fusion Drive M.HS180 EP6750.00 (1) Power 6750 Fuel Use 19.49% Signature 1080.00 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 4,000,000 Litres Range 82.1 billion km (126 days at full power)
Quad Rheinmetall AG Gauss Cannon Mk.1 (16x20) Range 50,000km TS: 32000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 50,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R60-TS32000 (4) Max Range: 60,000 km TS: 32,000 km/s 83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Size 1 Missile Pod (16) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 5
Cyberdyne Systems Corporation AMM Missile Fire Control FC12-R1 (10%) (4) Range 12.1m km Resolution 1
Misriah Armory Stilletto Light Anti-Ship Missile (300) Speed: 62,533 km/s End: 3.3m Range: 12.4m km WH: 10 Size: 3 TH: 479/287/143
Raytheon Rapier AMM (996) Speed: 87,600 km/s End: 0.5m Range: 2.5m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 671/402/201
Raytheon Point DRADIS AS19-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 48 Range 19.1m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1
Raytheon Command DRADIS AS562-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 192000 Range 562.1m km Resolution 100
Raytheon Standard DRADIS AS51-R20 (10%) (1) GPS 960 Range 52m km Resolution 20
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
ECM 50
Strike Group
30x B2 Lancer Bomber Speed: 31300 km/s Size: 3.99
6x D4 Raven Dropship Speed: 12515 km/s Size: 9.99
2x SC1 Bugeye Scout Speed: 12515 km/s Size: 9.99
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
While I'm uncertain of your military doctrine, I would strongly recommend raising both the maintenance life and the deployment time on the carrier - what you have is far, far too short for any kind of extended conflict. I would suggest at least 12 months of deployment time, with 2+ years of maintenance supplies. You also appear to have only one engine, which is a extremely inadvisable on such a large, decidedly non-expendable vessel. Fuel efficiency is not as important as ensuring you don't lose all motive power from an unlucky hit, especially considering the carrier doesn't have the MSP to repair a damaged engine.
Furthermore, insufficient MSP for a damaged engine can result in an explosion that destroys the ship. Best to have some extra MSP on ships with large engines in my opinion.
-
Now I'm struggling how to use the frakking things. I order them to close to 900km and then fire, but they get got by missiles and I don't think they even launch.
-
Now I'm struggling how to use the frakking things. I order them to close to 900km and then fire, but they get got by missiles and I don't think they even launch.
Is their fire delayed by inexperienced fleet penalties? Do you have 100% fleet training? The inexperienced fleet penalty is deadly for beam fighters and short ranged missile bombers.
-
I thought the range looked short, but I'm wildly inexperienced there. I haven't actually fired weapons in Aurora since the VB days!
My primary missile series hovers around 30mkm range, and I didn't think those were especially long-ranged weapons. On the other hand besides being untested in combat they're size 5 munitions whose latest generation using cutting-edge ion drives is considerably slower than your bombers.
-
Now I'm struggling how to use the frakking things. I order them to close to 900km and then fire, but they get got by missiles and I don't think they even launch.
Is their fire delayed by inexperienced fleet penalties? Do you have 100% fleet training? The inexperienced fleet penalty is deadly for beam fighters and short ranged missile bombers.
Well, yes but the planet I'm attacking also has unlimited short-range missiles that destroys anything when it comes close. I got in close and used my carrier group to soak the missile and I almost broke my mouse clicking through all the missiles they launched at me. It fealt rather cheesy and kinda anticlimactic.
I also hate how I organized all my bombers into neat little wing subfleets only for them to be absorbed into the fleet when I sent them back to the carrier.
-
Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.
-
Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.
Nah, my Gauss cannons worked fine when the whole fleet was in one place. Problem was when my beam frigates or bombers got too close; my bombers don't have any PD and my frigates only have 2, which is enough at every range except at about 1m km when they unleash a constant stream of size 1 missiles at me.
-
I would seriously consider making that ship use a few smaller engines. What you gain in fuel efficiency you will loose on engineering sections and paying allot more in MSP. Having an engine that expensive and a single one can mean the ship have a mission kill even before it start combat. It also will never be able to repair the engine if it is lost to shock damage or some unlucky hot getting through its armour.
To be honest I think that engine on the carrier is a huge liability... but it is your decision. :)
In terms of fighters... if you want to get really close to the enemy you will need a screen of interceptors to accompany the bombers. You can have a layered defence of gauss/railgun fighters and AMM/anti-craft multi role fighters.
Although I generally think it is too dangerous to get too close to enemy ships, even with fighters. I tend to want them shooting from a more safer distance. I also want the fire control to be at an even greater distance so they can dart into range and shoot their missiles and start moving away as soon as they released their missiles.
I also tend to use dedicated sensor scouts so I usually paint he target from someplace else but I do keep a dedicated sensor scout in the strike force as a backup too. A 500t high resolution sensor scout can paint the target for the time the missile need into impact from a safe distance and then turn off their sensor and move away unharmed.
Keeping the actual strike group hidden for as long as possible is generally very important.
Now... NPRs are perhaps not famous for very reliant anti-fighter capabilities... perhaps Steve will give them more options in that regard in the future with more dedicated anti-fighter/FAC ships sporting more resolution 5 sensors and smaller lower yield fast and agile missiles.
In my own multi-faction games though using fighters is allot riskier as the opponent will adapt and defend effectively against such tactics.
Personally i tend to design all my ships as if my opponent could effectively defend against them even if I know the NPR might not have that capability.
-
Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.
Nah, my Gauss cannons worked fine when the whole fleet was in one place. Problem was when my beam frigates or bombers got too close; my bombers don't have any PD and my frigates only have 2, which is enough at every range except at about 1m km when they unleash a constant stream of size 1 missiles at me.
So it sounds like you need more gauss cannons 🙂
-
Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.
Nah, my Gauss cannons worked fine when the whole fleet was in one place. Problem was when my beam frigates or bombers got too close; my bombers don't have any PD and my frigates only have 2, which is enough at every range except at about 1m km when they unleash a constant stream of size 1 missiles at me.
So it sounds like you need more gauss cannons 🙂
Or at least more frigates...
Anyways, what do you people think of this escort carrier I made? Its supposed to be an easy, low-cost way to get military-grade hangars to places where proper carriers aren't necessary, like porviding fighter cover for invasions or sending scouts into enemy territory.
Manila Bay class Escort Carrier 15,000 tons 297 Crew 2,598.7 BP TCS 300 TH 1,250 EM 0
4166 km/s Armour 4-54 Shields 0-0 HTK 95 Sensors 24/24/0/0 DCR 40 PPV 60.32
Maint Life 4.22 Years MSP 3,082 AFR 180% IFR 2.5% 1YR 277 5YR 4,162 Max Repair 312.5 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 2,000 tons Magazine 376
Captain Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required
EADS Medium Magnetic Fusion Drive C.HS100 EP1250.00 (1) Power 1250 Fuel Use 1.68% Signature 1250 Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 256,000 Litres Range 183.1 billion km (508 days at full power)
Quad Rheinmetall AG Gauss Cannon A Mk.1 (8x20) Range 50,000km TS: 32000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 50,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R60-TS32000 (1) Max Range: 60,000 km TS: 32,000 km/s 83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Raytheon Capital DRADIS AS125-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 9600 Range 125.7m km Resolution 100
Raytheon Point DRADIS AS19-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 48 Range 19.1m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
ECM 50
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.
Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...
-
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.
Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...
Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.
And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.
-
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.
-
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.
Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...
Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.
And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.
I agree with the above comments... in my "opinion" it is more like a flak Destroyer with some oversized hangar capacity and not a light carrier. If it was a light carrier it would have allot more hangar space and much less flak capacity.
Most of my Destroyers of this size all have half the hangar space as this "carrier" does used mainly for scouting crafts.
My light carriers are roughly the same type of design as this but with just some rudimentary flak capacity and allot more hangar space to use for patrol, scouting or supporting planetary invasions with fighters. They then mostly get assigned older destroyers or purpose built frigates as escort.
-
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.
Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...
Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.
And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.
Personally I like to put 1 big gun and then just hangars on my Carriers and give them an escort fleet of destroyers with Gauss and cruisers with more and multiple big guns.
For example if I have lasers or particle lances I will put a spinal mount on the Carrier and then load it with fighters that can do whatever I want them to do. My carriers are also usually the ships holding the Jump drive cause my whole idea of the carrier is something that sits on the other side of a jump point and launches fighters that I can warp through the jump point in order to strike and return without ever having to move the actual fleet away from containment or into danger.
-
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.
Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...
Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.
And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.
I can't see the mass breakdown, but I suspect you've got at least four times as much tonnage of Gauss turrets as of hangars. I'd barely call that a carrier, let alone a light carrier - more of a FDF warship with a generous oat bay.
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.
If you don't board ships until the area is sanitized enough to put your carrier in it, and they've lost all mobility, the only advantage of having small-craft dropships is that (if they're under 500 tons) they should be able to land the troops on planets as well as on enemy ships.
-
OK, hows this then?
Manila Bay class Escort Carrier (P) 10,427 tons 207 Crew 2,085.5 BP TCS 209 TH 313 EM 0
1498 km/s Armour 4-42 Shields 0-0 HTK 71 Sensors 24/24/0/0 DCR 33 PPV 30.16
Maint Life 1.33 Years MSP 375 AFR 290% IFR 4.0% 1YR 225 5YR 3,371 Max Repair 192 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 4,000 tons Magazine 187
Captain Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 80 Morale Check Required
Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Small Magnetic Fusion Drive C.HS25 EP312.50 (1) Power 312.5 Fuel Use 3.35% Signature 312.5 Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range 128.6 billion km (993 days at full power)
Quad Rheinmetall AG Gauss Cannon A Mk.1 (4x20) Range 50,000km TS: 32000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 50,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R60-TS32000 (1) Max Range: 60,000 km TS: 32,000 km/s 83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Raytheon Capital DRADIS AS125-R100 (10%) (1) GPS 9600 Range 125.7m km Resolution 100
Raytheon Point DRADIS AS19-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 48 Range 19.1m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1) Sensitivity 24 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 38.7m km
ECM 50
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.
It is beneficial if you want the marines to actually survive boarding action and be able to attempt combat against the enemy crew. The boarding action mechanic is something like troop survival chance = boarding ship speed / target ship speed, so assuming your boarding craft are faster than the ship they are deployed from, there is a potential advantage to using boarding craft instead of your larger slower carrier.
I should also note that by 'dropship' I assume you mean 'boarding' craft, because drop pods are a different technology than boarding pods and they each should be used for their intended purposes for maximum effect.
-
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.
It is beneficial if you want the marines to actually survive boarding action and be able to attempt combat against the enemy crew. The boarding action mechanic is something like troop survival chance = boarding ship speed / target ship speed, so assuming your boarding craft are faster than the ship they are deployed from, there is a potential advantage to using boarding craft instead of your larger slower carrier.
If you never board a ship that's still moving, though, the carrier will be fast enough to get 100% safe landings.
-
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.
It is beneficial if you want the marines to actually survive boarding action and be able to attempt combat against the enemy crew. The boarding action mechanic is something like troop survival chance = boarding ship speed / target ship speed, so assuming your boarding craft are faster than the ship they are deployed from, there is a potential advantage to using boarding craft instead of your larger slower carrier.
If you never board a ship that's still moving, though, the carrier will be fast enough to get 100% safe landings.
That is true. But boring. Boarding whilst dodging incoming flak and beams is much more entertaining. In my opinion. Especially if friendly ships are providing cover fire.